I personally want equal marriage for the equality part, however I myself do not want to get married. I never have done, even in the days when I thought I was straight it was something that never appealed to me. With all this focus on marriage I feel a bit disheartened in the fact that whether gay or straight marriage is seen is something we should all aim for.

But why should we? There are plenty of people who have been together for years but remain unmarried. It doesn’t make it any less of a family or a relationship just because the two people in it aren’t married. Yes if I was in a long-term relationship and my partner wanted marriage I would reconsider it but in general marriage is something, which right now, I don’t want for myself or in the future. So while at the moment I don’t ever want to get married, though I am aware that may change, equal marriage is something I believe should be put through. After all it will be a step in the right direction

While I often see the appeal of marriage, mainly because my parents will be celebrating their 22nd wedding anniversary next month, it is not something I have always dreamed of happening. That being said, I hope MPs do the right thing and take equal marriage to the next step tomorrow. It is a change that will only be a good thing and while people may be against it, the actual concept of a homosexual couple getting married does not directly affect them. It is just two people celebrating their love for one another. Something I think is great.

It is possible that in writing this I have changed my opinion on myself getting married, if I am actually allowed. But just know this, if I ever do get married the wedding will be FABULOUS.

But then…

Then I read Tom Chivers’ article, “In Grudging Defence of Lord Carey”.

Of course, my wishy-washy liberalism means I’m especially allergic to Torygraph muddlings, but this one really took the biscuit. He writes words, and people pay for them. His Telegraph introduction notes that he “writes on science, technology …he is particularly proud of exposing The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown’s worst sentences to a disbelieving world.” He reviewed Game of Thrones. This suggests a man who pays attention to language. Hooray!

So what    t        f           is he arguing?

WordPress asked if I’d like this image ‘Left’, ‘Center [sic]‘ or ‘Right’.

“[Lord Carey] rejected suggestions that the true “bigots” were those who advocated gay marriage and would not listen to legitimate concerns of religious groups who disagreed.

“Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names,” he said. “Let’s remember that the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started it all against them was when they started being called names. That was the first stage towards that totalitarian state.”

I’d add in what Carey said next:

“We have to resist them. We treasure democracy. We treasure our Christian inheritance and we want to debate this in a fair way.”

Chivers’ evaluation?

“Lord Carey…is rejecting the opportunity to paint his opponents as bigots; he is warning against hurling abusive terms around, including by his own side. In fact, taking the analogy he draws at face value, the “Jews” are advocates of gay marriage, and the “Nazis” are opponents who call them “the true bigots”. He is calling for polite debate. We should be encouraging this, not decrying him.”

No Tom. No, he’s saying that the ‘Jews’ are Christians. He’s saying that those in favour of homosexual marriage legislation are Nazis. Specifically, he seems to be talking about Nick Clegg’s gaffe, despite the fact Cleggo removed the word ‘bigots’ (which I happen to agree with) from the speech. Now, if the whole C4EM (coalition for equal marriage) camp was truly screaming ad hominem insults, and producing no further arguments, then his call for ‘polite debate’ would be relevant, even if the hyperbole he deploys would not.  But they aren’t. If anything, homosexuals tend to be more frequent recipients of abuse, not that I wanna stray into tu quoque territory. This blogger does it for me. People are already civilly discussing this matter, from both sides and indeed from atop the weather-beaten fence.

What Carey is doing is rabble-rousing. Fearmongering. Lying. He’s telling C of E members that there is a coalition out to crush their free speech, and that this coalition is comparable to one of the nastier fascist regimes. He is conjoring a spectre to rally against, where no spectre exists.

Why?

Because he feels threatened. Of course, it isn’t his free speech that’s threatened – but only by couching his argument in free speech terms can he make it look remotely sensible. Chivers, oh Chivers, what’s he really defending?

Oh yeah.

The idea that the Church has a bigger, better, more authoritative say on matters than anyone else. Indeed, that his specific views on a specific issue, issuing from a specific sect of a specific faith, are being squashed.[ “Same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level.”] OK Leonard, we are attacking that. We are saying that you and your people should have exactly the same control over morality-related legislation as anyone else. We are arguing that membership of one creed does not allow you any privileges**. If that makes me a Nazi, than I will proudly don a blackshirt.

TAG IN! fidei defensor Widdecombe

“This is not an anti-gay rally. It is defending marriage.“

Well I’m glad it’s not an anti-gay rally Ann. Because that’s something, I dunno, bigots do. And you aren’t a bigot, are you? You’re just standing up for your narrow definition of an abstract concept, and arguing that that definition should continue to be applied to people who don’t follow your beliefs, reasoning or conclusions. That’s fine. Good for you.

Grauniad notes:
Widdecombe, a former Home Office minister, said such consequences would include the replacement of cherished liturgy and names such as “mother” and “father” with “progenitor A and progenitor B” or “partners to the marriage”.

Interesting. A little unfounded, perhaps. I could be wrong. Maybe these plans exist, and I just haven’t seen them. Or maybe she’s doing one of those arguments again. You know. The ones about  hillsides with unsafe friction coefficients.

More:

Carey argued that teachers, doctors and other professionals might be forced out of their jobs if they refused to embrace the proposed change to the law, an intolerant restriction on free speech that Widdecombe said could make the Church of England force disestablishment.

Yeah, that would be terrible. If it was remotely true.

Christian Concern, with some joy, writes:

Ms Widdecome drew applause from attendees as she argued that opponents of same-sex marriage were “no longer free” to express their views on the issue, challenging David Cameron to explain how he “can even contemplate creating such a Britain”…” MPs are free to speak their minds… but the people they govern are no longer free to speak their minds.”

No longer free? No longer free? Then what in GOD’s name are you and Lord Carey doing? Are you NOT arguing against homosexual marriage? Are you being arrested? Are you being threatened, detained, hounded, lynched, defamed or otherwise persecuted by the state?!

No, Ann. You are not. You are perfectly free, and you are taking a rather absurd stance in a debate, which everyone is happy for you to do. Carry on, please do. Just realise that Cameron et al’s proposed (and, sadly, shelved) legislation is not remotely infringing your freedom. Your Lordly buddy’s comparisons are a gross affront to the thousands around the world who really are suffering legal gagging. But you’re not. This is not a free speech crackdown. This is just what losing an argument feels like.

*He actually ticked another box with his mystical anthropology:

Stressing the need to preserve the family as the “fundamental unit of any society”.

I guess all my examples of societies that don’t conform to your heteronormative model are just figments of mine (and hundreds of social scientists’) imaginations?

Well. There’s sort of. Evidence for them. Unlike. You know. The big guy with the beard and the foreskins and the thunderbolts.

** One of the ‘attacks’ they perceived recently was the court ruling that it was illegal for Bideford Town Council to include Christian Prayers in their official Order of Business. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025. Awwh.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook or email me at james.lynch.staunton@gmail.com

Feel free to comment!

The media and opponents of Equal Marriage legislation often use the phrase “Gay Marriage”. This is not correct. Equal Marriage affects more than just the gay community. Even used as a pars pro toto it is a bit lazy.

Imagine a couple, happily married, children, cat and dog. One day one of the married partners, a transsexual, begins the long painful process of reconciling their body with their inner self.

After years of Real Life Experience, hormones and surgery the day comes to fix the birth certificate. You’ve come all this way together, in sickness and in health. But you can’t stay married. In order to obtain the correct certificates, your marriage has to be dissolved. It’s the law.

And a civil partnership simply is not the same.

On 5 February 2013 the House of Commons voted and backed the Equal Marriage Bill by 400 to 175, a margin of 225.

Below is the predictable response from Jeffrey Donaldson MP, DUP Lagan Valley, when I put it to him Equal Marriage is an equality issue:

Yours sincerely

C4EM

Contrary to what a lot of people outside the United Kingdom think, same-sex marriage isn’t actually legal in the U.K. Instead they have civil partnerships, which grant all the same rights as marriage, except for the label. There is a home office consultation underway asking the population its opinion on civil same-sex marriage. Pretty much the U.K. is considering changing its policy regarding same-sex marriage and so it’s conducting a poll, sort of.

The anti-same-sex marriage campaign has come under some fire recently regarding its tactics, and rightly so. As the article I linked to indicates, the Catholic Church was actually circulating a political petition to students as young as 11-years-old. At the very least it is irresponsible, and perhaps even illegal. The petition that was circulated was started by a group called the Coalition for Marriage (C4M). According to the Daily Mail, C4M is a “grassroots organisation,” though in reality it has backing from a number of political and religious leaders. Grassroots isn’t really the proper term, I don’t think.

Job done. You’re welcome.

However, whilst a great thing, there is one problem with this: did you guys notice the word “Anglican” up there? One of the smaller** sects of christiantity has just caved, whereas the word “Catholic” is noticably absent. I suppose that I’m asking the earth, but I’ll only feel glad that human rights are being upheld when all the mystics, soothsayers and exorcists of the multinational corporation of Christ agree to uphold them.

***

On a related note, do you remember that a few weeks ago I found the Coalition for Marriage? Well, like all leptons have anti-leptons of opposite charge, so there is a contrasting, and awesome, coalition.

The best part is that it actively apes and parodies the original. All of the things I said are mentioned in a rebuttal, along with many others I didn’t. So you have no excuse not to sign the petition. Join the Coalition for Equal Marriage right here:

Interestingly, the site that I am nicking this image from is, as comment number one the page indicates, "a pretty obnoxious smear." Ah, irony.

—

* I wish that everything – clouds, termites, small rocks, cosmic alignments  – everything threatened the church. Not to cause the people in the church harm, but because that way we could pretty much guarantee the crumble of organised religion. Either that, or owning small rocks would become a fatwah-able offence.

** Admittedly still pretty big, compared to many other religions, but still not as big as “The Holy See“.